Point of Law : Decision of a public authority will be liable to be quashed or otherwise dealt with by an appropriate order in judicial review proceedings where Court concludes that decision is such that no authority properly directing itself on relevant law and acting reasonably could have reached it.

JUDGMENT :

The extra-ordinary jurisdiction conferred upon this Court by Article 226 of the Constitution of India is sought to be invoked by means of this writ petition whereby the petitioner has put to challenge an order dated 29.12.2015 by which he was removed from his service as Constable in the Railway Protection Force (RPF). The departmental appeal preferred by the petitioner against the said order of removal was also dismissed vide order dated 08.04.2019 whereafter this writ petition has been filed.

2. Before going to deal with the grounds of challenge, the brief facts of the case may be stated.

3. The petitioner was appointed as Constable in the RPF on 22.05.1999. It is the projected case of the petitioner that he has been discharging his duties sincerely and without any blemish and was posted at TE-Coy/Lumding. In between, the petitioner was transferred to 15 RPF at Chaparmukh. On 07.01.2014, he was again transferred back to his original place of posting at Lumding with joining date as 10.01.2014. The petitioner has alleged that he could not join within the stipulated period of 3 days at Lumding as he had fallen ill and was under treatment. On such absence, the authorities had issued a memorandum of charges dated 04.02.2015. On receipt of notice about the said proceeding, the petitioner had appeared in the inquiry twice and could not appear thereafter. The inquiry culminated into a report dated 08.09.2015 holding the charges to be proved and the disciplinary authority, upon consideration of the facts and circumstances and the inquiry report, had passed the impugned order dated 29.12.2015 removing the petitioner from service. Against the impugned order, the petitioner had preferred a departmental appeal on 27.02.2017 which was lying unattended and accordingly, the petitioner had filed a writ petition, being WP(C)/3176/2017 in which a direction was issued for disposal of the departmental appeal with liberty. Consequently, the appeal was rejected vide order dated 08.04.2019. Thereafter, the present petition has been filed.

4. I have heard Shri S Nath, learned counsel for the petitioner whereas the respondents are represented by Shri BK Das, learned Standing Counsel, Railways. The materials placed before this Court have been carefully examined.

5. Shri Nath, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order of penalty of removal from service is wholly unsustainable in law. It is submitted that the impugned order is bad, both on account of procedural infirmity as well as on the doctrine of proportionality. It is submitted that the petitioner was deprived from a fair and reasonable opportunity to defend himself in the departmental proceeding as a result whereof the impugned order has been passed causing immense prejudice and hardship to the petitioner. It is alleged that no proper notice of the inquiry was served upon him as a result of which, the petitioner could be present in the inquiry only on two dates. The petitioner was not made aware of his right to have the services of a defence assistant.

6. On the doctrine of proportionality, Shri Nath, learned counsel submits that the penalty in question is absolutely harsh and not at all commensurate to the nature of the allegation levelled against him. The charge of unauthorised absence from duties, though may constitute a misconduct, is not such a serious misconduct which would invite the most severe punishment of removal from service. It is, accordingly submitted that the impugned order be interfered with.

7. In support of his submissions, Shri Nath has placed before this Court a copy of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2003) 4 SCC 331 (Director General, RPF and Others Vs. Ch. Sai Babu).

8. In the aforesaid case, which dealt with a penalty of removal from service of an incumbent who was charged under Rule 153 of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987 (hereinafter the Rules), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows-

6. As is evident f